In a thread regarding a song I wrote in 1993 and recorded recently, my neighbor emil posted a lengthy reply to my concerns. In the interest of not derailing a rather old topic, I’m posting my reply as a new primary blog entry. Feel free to chime in.
A few notes before I begin, directed particularly at relatives and friends who visit:
- This is my opinion. As I mentioned previously, I would not speak so boldly if it were your obligation to believe me.
- I try not to disparage people’s beliefs. However, institutions, public officials, and dogmas or policies are not beliefs, they are analyze-able, real things which can and should be criticized.
- When Emil approached me regarding my nonbelief at a picnic last year, I replied that I’d rather not discuss it at a social gathering of that kind. If I recall correctly, I compared discussing religion at a 4th of July picnic to discussing flatulence. Most people aren’t interested and would really rather avoid such a discussion; those who are interested, and attend a meeting for the express purpose of discussing flatulence, should scrupulously avoid offense due to the discussion. So if you regard religious discussions, particularly those which discuss nonbelief in a positive light like the many we’ve had here, as verbal flatulence, you may want to skip this post and move on 🙂
- I make extensive use of inline quoting. In every case in this post today, I’m quoting a statement of Emil’s. You may want to go back and read the original thread to understand how we got to where we’re at.
Disclaimers: Done. Reply: Coming up.
First, Emil, I’ll share a common sales technique with you. It’s called “Feel Felt Found“. To summarize the approach, first you establish empathy with someone by explaining that you know how they are feeling. Second, you explain how you, or someone you know, felt the same way. Finally, you explain how you or that other person found that the concerns really weren’t that big a deal, or how they actually are a good thing.
I used this technique extensively in my work as a full-time missionary, stake missionary, and ward mission leader. It works, and is emphasized in Church training materials as the most effective method for resolving concerns.
It is used extensively in hard-sell sales presentations, along with a score of other techniques expressly designed to exploit human weaknesses. When used outside of a genuine, mutual-trust relationship, it’s manipulative, abusing well-known practices of influencing people to make decisions against their better judgment, and I dislike it.
The over-arching structure of your post fell into that pattern: you told me you understand how I feel, told me how you felt the same way, then told me that you found a better way. I appreciate you sharing intensely personal, painful experiences, but I think it’s important to recognize the technique you are using while doing so. It may be worth your time to figure out why you’re using it on me.
I don’t think you fell into this pattern intentionally. It’s drilled into members of the church (particularly on full-time missions) as a chief method of resolving many concerns. For many, it’s an unconscious response, as are the use of numerous other sales techniques in presenting the Gospel.
Somewhere in my late 20s, I started questioning things and found reason not to believe.
Common ground. I was twenty-five when I began seriously questioning my faith. I left the church at twenty-nine after around four years of on-again, off-again research; I’m thirty-two now.
I even wanted to believe that there was no God.
Here’s where the differences start. I desparately wanted to believe there was a God. In fact, I kinda’ still do. I’d love it if there were a Sky God looking out for me and answering my prayers. That would rock and be pretty darn nifty. Vengeance on my enemies, rewards for my friends, guaranteed happiness in an eternal hereafter, and all that good stuff. (Note: reassurances of “there is, just pray and find Him!” ring hollow. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt and underwear, thanks. One definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over, expecting different results. I’m not interested in trying that again.)
I reasoned that if I could conclude that there is no God, then it would follow that there really was no right or wrong.
I came to the opposite conclusion. I reasoned that if there are no gods, then Man is responsible for establishing sound personal ethics by following general guidelines, rather than obeying arbitrary moral codes. I have a stake in the fate of humanity, and it behooves me to behave in a socially and personally responsible fashion.
Others come to different conclusions, though. And that’s OK by me. From where I sit, I see an evolutionary advantage to socially responsible behavior, which happens to align in many cases with religious morals. However, there are some pretty stark contrasts here and there where “commandments” look silly from an internalized ethical perspective (See my Ethics vs. Morals post for my analysis of the Ten Commandments from an ethical, non-dogmatic perspective along these lines.)
What I mainly did, was try to prove his non-existence by ignoring him, not praying to him, and just living my life how I wanted.
Ahh. I tried to prove His existence by having faith, being a good Christian and Mormon (yes, I’m one of those people who considered himself both, don’t razz me!), and turning my life over to Jesus for twelve years.
You can see how that turned out. That particular experiment was a failure. I needed a better hypothesis.
I think it’s important to recognize that it’s impossible to prove a negative. I can’t prove God doesn’t exist. I can’t prove Zeus, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny don’t exist, either. I can, however, state that I consider the existence of any of the four to be equally likely, and have yet to see evidence to suggest any of them exist as more than human inventions.
I guess I did okay “on my own” for a while. But I think that was only because I didn’t abandon everything I had been taught about right and wrong.
Allow me to advance an alternative hypothesis. Humanity has evolved with social patterns and instruction as an important survival trait. Cultures have risen and fallen based upon how conducive their social patterns were to reproductive success (reproductive success implies a whole lot more than breeding like rabbits, btw… a strong tradition of knowledge transfer from the aged to the young requires care for the elderly, and that kind of thing). The actions of an individual which support the societal success patterns of their culture tend to lend toward individual success as well.
You did “OK” because “right and wrong” are social values. Not religious ones. IMHO, God had nothing to do with whether or not you were “OK”. He wasn’t handing you a cookie for doing the right thing. Doing the right thing, by and large, is its own reward, with numerous and notable exceptions which are exploited by those willing to exploit the system for personal gain.
I think you’ll find even some Christians agree with me that doing good doesn’t necessarily bring blessings in life. This is “magical thinking” in action: if I do X random thing, Y will happen. If I pay my tithing, I’ll get a raise. If I don’t wank, then I’ll get into the school I want to. If I keep the Sabbath Day holy, the drought will end. That kind of stuff is pure poppycock… but if you want to see a relationship there, well, the dragons in the clouds are always waiting (see later reference in this reply to finding patterns in random cloud formations).
But living life “how I wanted” did lead me into doing some things I shouldn’t have.
I submit that even if you had lived your life exclusively in the fashion prescribed by Mormonism, you’d still have done things you “shouldn’t have”. Modern-day Christianity presents an impossible standard of perfection which requires redemption by a Savior. According to this theology, there was only one dude that ever lived the perfect life. He died and came back, and is like all holy and holey and stuff, and if you believe in him, your failure to meet the impossible standard is forgiven.
To quote Paul Murphy: “Guilt. Stop being motivated by it.”
You continued with several personal anecdotes. I appreciated them, and feel I understand you a little better after reading them.
When I got back to my computer, I tried that idea and it worked! I know that answer came from God.
I dunno… the Microsoft KnowledgeBase seems like a surer bet than God from where I sit. I work with computers for a living, and you have no idea how many long nights I spent (back when I was a believer) praying that I could fix a terrible problem in time, and yet I still couldn’t fix it or I blew the deadline.
How many times have you prayed about problems and not gotten an answer? The idea that God hears and answers prayers is, to out-of-context quote my friend Justin, “treating God like a cosmic vending machine”. Insert faith and works, output blessings. I submit that, if there is a God, he gave us brains sufficient for our needs. Sure, if you’re a believer, it “came from God”… but it came from Him by way of your extraordinary brain figuring it out.
The phenomenon of ascribing things to unlikely causes is called “counting the hits and ignoring the misses”. You remember the time you were thinking of that song, and then turned on the radio and it was playing. You remember the time you were thinking of your friend or relative, and at that exact moment, they called. You forget all the times you thought of a song and it wasn’t playing on the radio, or thought of the friend or relative and they didn’t call.
It’s a human thing. We naturally hunt for patterns in the chaos, and find them. They are, however, like seeing dragons in the clouds: ephemeral, temporary, and a construct of our own imaginations.
If we seek other answers to explain these things, surely we can invent them.
I agree with this statement. However, I submit that the simplest answer is to look for natural causes, and the “other answers” we “invent” are the traditional, complicated religious ones.
If you add my examples to all the testimonies of others who’ve experienced God’s power, guidance, and love, it really leaves little doubt that he lives and knows us and desires to help us.
The plural of “anecdote” is not “evidence”. Just because an idea is popular doesn’t mean it’s correct or plausible. A billion Moslems can’t be wrong. A billion Hindus can’t be wrong. A billion Christians can’t be wrong. And yet, the theologies are (largely, with caveats) mutually exclusive! Somebody’s wrong, but they’re all very popular.
Matthew quote: “… it’s so obvious what a tremendous mind-job people — particularly youth — undergo in that sort of coercive group-think environment.” Of course, I assume this statement is made on the premise that the things taught are not true.
You assume incorrectly. You can do a mind-job using “true” principles as easily as false ones. You can have group-think about things which are ethical and virtuous as much as ones which are unethical and villainous. The principles being taught are irrelevant; it’s the method that matters. If you use unethical techniques to persuade someone to do the right thing, you’ve still abused a trust in order to achieve your goals.
There are several specific practices in the LDS church I consider coercive and inappropriate. Not possessing an asbestos suit and industrial-grade fire extinguisher, however, I prefer not to post them.
(Note: the above is a metaphor as a response to getting “flamed” by relatives. Posting specific criticisms of the LDS church is a personal no-no for me on this board due to unhappy relatives making my wife’s life miserable when I’ve done so.)
— Matthew P. Barnson – – – – Thought for the moment: Finding out what goes on in the C.I.A. is like performing acupuncture on a rock. — New York Times, Jan. 20, 1981
Thanks for moving the topic
Thanks for moving the topic to its own place. Sorry if I cluttered up the other blog entry.
From things you’ve said, you seem obviously intelligent and well-read. Unfortunately, I don’t have all the background knowledge about techniques, psychological tactics, definitions of terms, etc. that you seem to have. So, I can’t very well argue some of your points. On the other hand, as a “believer,” I’m not as concerned with man’s deductions as I am with God’s desire for me. Anyway, there are still a few points I’d like to bring up here.
You mentioned this sales technique that you feel I used. I don’t doubt that such a technique has been taught etc. For me, it just seemed like a logical approach based on my understanding of people etc. I’ve never been in any professional sales and I’ve never been on a mission for the Church, nor been in any official missionary capacity.
I often try to connect with other people by sharing experiences I’ve had in common with them. And if I believe that I’ve discovered something they haven’t, I try to show them that information. I guess I often have this desire to pass on knowledge to others (I have had to wonder at times if it some feeling of superiority and yet I have my times of feeling inferior to others), although it seems sometimes people don’t care to receive the information I want to give (I’m saying this in general terms).
Matthew quote: “It may be worth your time to figure out why you’re using it on me.” (Sorry, I don’t know how to do the inline quote thing.)
I think I fairly clearly showed in my comments what my intent was:
emilt quote: “I share them with the hope that you might be able to see what I see in them–the hand of the Lord or his influence in my life, which attests to me that he is there.”
emilt quote: “Would you, could you, give God another chance? … put your faith in him and trust him.”
There are some of your points I agree with more or less. It’s late though, so I don’t want to go through them now.
You have a significant advantage over me in these discussions in that you know, to a large extent, what I believe as a member of the LDS church. On the other hand, I know very little about your current point of reference.
So, in the interest of understanding, I have a question: What is your hypothesis/belief/theory on where the Bible came from? Or more specifically, what is the origin of the original texts, some of which became part of the Bible? What was the motive for the authors to write them? How did they come up with some of the significant, doctrinal ideas. Why did they promote the idea of God in their writings?
Well, goodnight. emilt
The Bible and More
You didn’t. Unlike my real-life house, I’m an obsessive organizer of my data.
I try to be smart; thanks for the compliment. When you enter into the realm of religious philosophy, understand this has been, to my dismay, a passionate interest of mine for the last seven years. I’d really like to be interested in something else, but I have this gut feeling that understanding the psycho-social origins of religion is really important for my future, and the future of our species. If we fail to understand why we act the way we do when it comes to semi-rational beliefs, I think we’ll be putting our species’ future at risk.
That is what I guessed, because you used the technique clumsily. Not a flame, just an observation! I know some really, really slick marketers who use it with extreme subtlety and insight into human reactions. It’s been my observation that those most adroit at this ability — and who are able to use it without becoming cocky about it — are the ones who often end up in church leadership positions.
Just frame it with <blockquote> and </blockquote>. It will be inline-quoted. It’s a bit of extra typing though; I’m one of the few around here who does it, and everyone else is understood just fine 🙂
To be blunt? No, not really. I’m really not interested in signing up for that particular bandwagon again. Mormonism has shot itself in the foot as far as historical baggage and the ability to tell the truth is concerned, and I’m positive it’s not a path I’m interested in pursuing again.
Now, if you’re talking about “god” in the concept of some supernatural First Cause, I’m down with that. There very well may be some cosmic chick in a lab coat watching stuff unfold in the universe. Not saying I believe it, not saying I don’t, because such a thing would be, by requirement, totally without any evidence.
I might be more inclined to believe it if she were hot, though 😉
But the concept of a “personal God” who hears and answers prayers seems to be a holdover from ancient fear-based religions.
It’s simple: ask me. I’m not a template, I’m not a boilerplate of beliefs. And neither are you, really. I think there are probably as many systems of belief or nonbelief on the planet as there are people. The more an individual is willing to express their personal beliefs without feeling they have to conform that expression of opinion to some stereotype, the more interested I am in talking with them.
It’s entirely too complicated to express in a blog posting. Doctoral dissertations have been written just on the origin of particular books in the Bible. I’ll only touch on some relevant points. Realize that scholars disagree over many relevant details, and insofar as strong disagreement still exists, I reserve judgment in those areas.
First, when considering the Christian Bible, you first have to break it down: it’s at least two entirely separate books. Then once you’ve broken that down, you have the Chumash and the Talmud (written and oral, respectively) histories in the Torah, which were edited by at least four different sources. You’ve got the Nevi’im, or “Prophets”, which is a history of the Hebrew monarchies, and according to Jewish tradition is eight books (divided in today’s Bible to seventeen). Also the Ketuvim, or “Writings”, which is the post-Exile stuff and pretty much where the Old Testament ends.
Each book almost certainly has a rich history behind it. Some are well-documented. Some are mysterious. Some seem to be complete fabrications, or else a rehearsal of mythology. Regardless, they were not canonized until some time between 200 and 100 BCE.
(Note: yes, of course, I cheated a bit here. I don’t easily remember all the details of the names of the Hebrew writings off the top of my head. However, I do remember that such names exist, and I only have to look them up…)
The New Testament is a bit better-researched, with the first books having appeared circa 60CE, and not canonized until about 300CE. It seems that Modern-day Christianity is largely based upon Paulus’ writings, a man who never actually met the historical Jesus. In fact, if you study the New Testament carefully, you’ll find that Jesus seemed to preach a very different gospel from the mystery-religion Paul was promoting.
So for where the Bible came from? Well, it’s a very complex question, answered by much better-educated people than this college dropout. However, I can conclude that Biblical scholarship generally indicates authorship is divided. Also, the skeptic concludes that there is no good reason to believe the mythical miracles indicated therein did, in fact, happen.
Unless for some bizarre reason, the world then was a very different place from the world now, and operated under very different rules. And if you do that, of course, you open up the whole bazaar of Greek gods and goddesses who did what they did in some mythical prehistory, and that’s a can of worms I’d rather not get into…
Well, propaganda comes to mind. The New Testament authors admit it. However, I possess no crystal ball, but it’s a fair guess people wrote then for the same reason they write now: profit, fame, and compulsion. That last bit is what keeps me going: I have to write, or I’d explode.
Dude, anybody can cook up guilt-based power-mongering theology. Christianity has had 1,900 years to do it or so. One need look no further than Mormonism to see how far beyond its creator’s wildest dreams the weirdest theology can go. Puritans living on the moon, God living on a crystal planet around a massive star, the Earth being physically moved from the orbit of one star to another, a planet being converted from its base materials into a big crystal, plain-old Egyptian funerary text papyrii actually being a massive revalation from a mythical Abraham… I could go on, but I won’t.
I’m starting to read the Koran, and I tell you, it convinces me that people can invent some remarkably whacked-out reasoning for things to happen.
Well, there are some scholars who suggest that the common interpretation is actually wrong, and that early Bible authors were, infact, humanists attempting to explain complicated ideas about communication and information propagation. I think there’s a less-complicated explanation: when the world is explained to you in certain terms, you tend to think along those terms. People are repositories of information, and no matter how original you think a thought is, you got it due to external sensory input. Philo Farnsworth invented television because he had been playing with vacuum tubes and was plowing a field, then imagined a vacuum tube broadcasting signals in rows like the field he was plowing. Sure, the application was inventive, but our accomplishments are built upon the shoulders of those who’ve gone before us.
We don’t invent. We innovate, and every innovation is just one logical step beyond the previous one. The reason some innovations seem so remarkable is that the author proceeded along many logical steps, building one new conclusion at a time, before arriving at their remarkable conclusions. Bible authors? Same deal. It’s a fair guess that many ancient Bible “editors” were paid to do so by the then-ruling monarchy, and where the purse strings are, people tend to write flattering words.
So to sum up my thoughts regarding the Bible? I agree with Penn & Teller: “It’s fair to say that the Bible contains equal parts of fact, history, and pizza.”
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Bible authors
I’ve only been out of the site for a few days and the discussion has already degenerated into a bunch of silly bantering (the last few posts in the blog).
I’ve read through so many new posts today, that I have a lot of thoughts swimming in my head. I wish I could comment on a bunch of them, but I guess you’ll only get a small dose right now.
In response to my question on reasons the authors wrote the Biblical texts, Matthew said:
Here’s a quote from the book of Luke in the New Testament.
Could it be that some authors wrote to educate, to inform, to declare their beliefs?
The books of Chronicles, Kings (and probably several others) in the Old Testament seem quite clearly historical writings, a record being kept of happenings of the time. These are my observations after having read them.
I’m sorry, but that’s all I’m going to post here tonight. If interested in more of this type of discussion, please check out my new personal blog, courtesy of Matthew.
emilt
Be careful..
My posts have not been about Silly bantering, Arthur’s was a heartfelt response, and Weed’s last post wa sthoughtful and actually kind of, well, kind.
You need to be careful about using words like “the discussion has already degenerated into a bunch of silly bantering” – because some of it hadn’t and it kind of slams the rest of us who put time and thought into saying what we had to say.
Hmm
I believe Emilt may have been referring to the football discussions at the end.
However, I would caution Emilt that humor is an integral part of this board, and if he expects us to have deep, philosophical discussions only without humor or the occasional silly bantering, he may be staring at empty blogs.
Nothing in life, including religion, is THAT serious 😉
My $.02 Weed
Well Done!
This was one of the best-written blogs I’ve read in a while. I nominate it for Blog Of The Year 2005.
Seriously, I’m half-tempted to print it out and take it to the Baptist family gathering I have to attend today…
My favorite quote: “The plural of “anecdote” is not “evidence”.”
I just think discussions like these are like the immovable object against the unstoppable force. Logic is useless against something based on faith. These discussions just end up showing us more aboutthe poster than really changing anyone’s view.
Although, poking holes in the “logic” of religion is fun. They need to abandon logic and just teach that you need to believe based on faith. Science has been chipping away at religion’s logic (not the right word??) for hundreds of years now. If it wasn’t for the afterlife and death, religion would have absolutely no attraction anymore.
That my $.02 Weed
For starters, excellent
For starters, excellent posts, all. Matthew and Emil, thank you for showing it is possible for a “believer” and a “non-believer” to explain where they’re both coming from without automatically reaching for the verbal napalm. (On a side note, wouldn’t “Verbal Napalm” be a kick-ass name for a band? 😛 )
And Weed, I like your image of the immovable object against unstoppable force. Logic and faith, in many ways, represent two completely different methods of developing ethical structure and living life in general. Personally, I think they’re both extremely beneficial when used appropriately. The danger lies in equating the two or asserting one’s universal superiority over the other. Case in point, I’d much rather rely on logic to explain why the sky gets red in a sunset and leave the “God’s big ‘ol paintbrush” theory by the wayside. But logic isn’t going to tell me why I find such a thing beautiful. Or even if it could, it wouldn’t be half as convincing as a sunset itself.
Reading your post, Matthew, makes me want to write my own “personal spiritual journey” post very much, but that would take too much time so I’ll leave it for another day.
Instead, let me bring up a tricky issue concerning evangelism, or as I call it the “Why I can’t get mad at those @*#$(% people at the door even though I really want to” issue. Like you, Matthew, I spent a good deal of time in an evangelical church. For me, it was Pentecostal Charismatics (their parties can be dull, but their worship services rock out hardcore.) After that time, I realized that I could not *make* myself believe in exclusive salvation: that only people who believe in Christ get to go to heaven. I tried to very hard, but it never really took.
But I met a ton of really, really good people at that church who did believe that. Very strongly. And it was because they believed, and also because they *loved,* that they fought so desperately to bring as many human souls to Christ as they could. If you really believe in a heaven and a hell, and that there’s only a certain way to avoid eternal torture, then, to paraphrase Paul, “Woe to you if you do not evangelize.” Indeed, if a person believes in hell and does *not* try very hard to bring as many people to heaven with them as they can, then I would personally consider them to be extremely morally corrupt.
Do I personally agree with the evangelical belief structure? No. Do I consider them misguided in many ways? Yes. Some much more than others. But at the same time, I have to give them credit for in their own way trying to make the universe a better place. Those ‘crackpots’ at our doors, for the most part, are trying to improve the lot of their fellow human beings.
In an increasingly apathetic world where far too many people espouse the “every person for themselves” way of living (I’ve heard it mentioned on this board a number of times, even), I have to give an evangelical of *any* religion credit for focusing on trying to help other people.
I will sometimes fault them for their beliefs (and frequently for their methods) but I cannot help but commend them for their intentions.
Anecdote vs. Evidence
Again, I’m pulled in. And let me agree with everyone here – this is how a religious discussion should progress.. although most of ours here do.
I must modify something for you though. You imply by your eloquently turned phrase “the plural of anecdote is not evidence”, that anecdote is not evidence. Let me modify that. Anecdote is not evidence, except to me.
I can’t prove to you using my anecdotes.. of course not. It would be pointless to try too hard, because I can be discounted. More often than not, I’m a loon.
But the fact remains, that the frog who dances for the steelworker and no one else is still a dancing frog, whether or not anyone else can tell. If “Man A” commits a crime against “Man B”, and there is no evidence except “Man B”‘s testimony, then sure, there is no conviction, but “Man A” will always believe it was “Man B” because that’s the truth.
I believe in God because most of the best things I have in my life are strongly rooted in Him. Most of my Best friends, including Matt and Rowan, have strong philosophies on faith, and it is in those discussions that I feel the most enriched. I met my wife through a chrictian camp i wasn’t supposed to go to when i was 15, and she and I became involved when she started seeking God at the same time I did, years later.
But more than that.. when I was down and out, I turned to Christ (cuz i had close to no one left), and my life turned around starkly when it was on a bad news path. When my wife was on a similar path, she turned to Christ, and everything improved. When my uncle who was dying from drug use turned to Christ, he stopped almost cold turkey and is now a responsible husband and father. When a pastor of mine turned to Christ, he went from irresponsible and hopeless to being responsible and having purpose… I’ve got a lot of stories like this that aren’t just stories from random people, they are from people I know and care about…
So I guess Anecdote has worked for me in this way. Here’s my metaphor. 1) Panera bread makes a superior Caramel latte to Starbucks. I heard people talk about the lattes at panerA, but paid it no mind. I was happily devoted to the Starbucks Nation.
2) But then my buddy Steve said he only drinks Panera lattes now because they’re reasonably priced and better. Then the girl who would be my wife did. Then Matt did a lot, (although to be fair he was drinking espresso without milk but called them Lattes) – these days, Matt drinks at Starbucks again, because there’s no way to quantify that panera is better (and because Starbucks has Cranberry Bliss bars, YUM!).
3) Eventually I tried Panera, and their Caramel Lattes are just better. I can give you reasons why, but you might not believe them. All i can do is tell you how good they are, and invite you to try them. Or maybe try them again. If you dont, I hope you enjoy your Starbucks.
Faith in god has done a lot for me and mine. Following that with a study of the Bible, and it seems to ring true with a lot of Wisdom, and it seems that if one were to live their lives by those standards, they would live a really good life.
Then I read “The Case For Christ”, and it helped, not by totally proving the truth of the Bible, but showing that faith need not be totally blind – and that there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that Christ’s story may be true.
So, that is my answer to you, Matt – to the question you proposed.
Why do i believe in Christianity? (And I must clarify that, as much as I respect the LDS church, I do not consider their theology or methodology to be in line with the Bible) – Because of the anecdotes of those I love, followed by my personal experience, followed by my study of the Bible, followed by study of the non-biblical evidence for Christ’s life, death and resurrection.
Oh, and yeah, I love Panera.
Grrr, argh!
We don’t even have a Panera Bread in Utah. Now I’ll never know if Panera has superior lattes, unless I come out to MD again some time soon.
To stretch the metaphor even further: I can’t help but wonder if there is a “God Gene” inside humans which dictates, to some extent, what person’s interest in and ability to receive spiritual experiences. And maybe it’s the Panera Bread of belief to the Starbucks of nonbelief… if that’s the case, I’m simply SOL because I don’t have one nearby. But if I had one close by, I too could experience the joy of a Panera caramel latte with beans that don’t taste like they were roasted with Napalm.
(Of course, I could take the metaphor too far and talk about opening a franchise…)
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Just because I’m in a playful mood….
Excellent analogy, Justin. But I must point out…
C.S. Lewis likened God to the noble, compassionate Great Lion, Aslan.
St. John of the Cross likened God to a long-sought lover that came to him from afar and brought him comfort in his dark night of the soul.
You have likened God to a Caramel Latte. From Panera.
Nice. 😛
Positive atheism
I’ll second the comments of praise for this reasoned and polite discussion of a topic that can incite powerful emotions.
Although I feel that I am a kindred spirit with Matthew in that we both grew up Mormon, both served Mormon missions, both were married in the Mormon Temple, etc., I expect that one significant place where we differ is that both my wife and I left the Church together. Our household – including our two children – is a completely secular one.
Consequently, I have fewer compunctions on speaking my mind in religious matters.
But rather than expounding upon the many problems with religion, I think it may be worthwhile to extol the virtues of having a thoroughly secular and materialistic outlook. Religion has so completely equated such an outlook with immorality and nihilism that I’d bet the electric creche on my neighbor’s front lawn that it is nearly impossible for a religious person to imagine – much less understand – how a person can be both non-religious and still be happy and moral.
(I think I can make a case that once one is freed from the false pretenses and false promises of religion the potential for personal fulfillment and moral behavior can increase. Or, in other words, that someone operating from a position of mature humanist ideals might be morally more developed than someone living a “good Christian life.”)
But I will forego this discussion in favor of some much needed groundwork.
As Emil noted, one of the first questions always posed by a religious person of a non-believer is, “Where is your moral center?” The automatic and instant assumption is that if there is no god, then everything is permissibile. Many who are flirting with juvenile notions of what a godless universe might be like might arrive at this conclusion themselves – sometimes with disasterous results.
But note that a universe without god doesn’t mean that there are no longer consequences for actions. The universe still operates according to Natural Laws. Not believing in god doesn’t mean that you are now immune to the pain of sticking your bare hand on a hot stove plate. So too, not believing doesn’t mean that you can behave in a morally reprehensible fashion without suffering the inevitible consequences.
I’m surprised how ingrained it is for people to think that being godless makes one inherently immoral. When, in truth, I suspect that the exact opposite is more likely true.
By way of analogy, if you behave morally only because you fear that a great warden is watching your every move and ready to mete out punishment for infractions of the law, but would readily behave immorally if he went away and watched you no more, then I submit that you’re not truly behaving morally in the first place. You’re just a criminal under watch.
True morality consists of taking personal responsibility for your actions – not merely abiding by the rules of a Supreme Warden. Moral behavior requires more than compliance to some set of prison rules handed down from above – it requires choice and an understanding of what impact your choices have upon others.
That’s not to rule out religion as a possible guideline for making wise choices, only that a belief in god is not necessary for one to be moral.
So, getting back to the original topic of this post – I agree with Matt that losing my faith was painful and I mourned it for some time. But now, I realize that becoming non-religious is actually a good thing. One can be godless, and still be moral and happy in life. In fact, I think that if one can mature beyond the initial shock of living in a cold and indifferent universe, one can find genuine meaning and rich fulfillment that goes beyond the sacchrine-sweet false pretenses upon which most religion trafficks. I liken it to learning the truth about Santa Claus. Sad at first, but then liberating and even exhilirating once you come to terms with how things really are.
There is beauty in the secular view of life. It is good to be godless.
In a lame attempt to be objective…
While I agree with what you said, Troy and I too have a shared experience to you and Matt… I have observed that Mormonism as a special way of souring religion for those who have left or are leaving the faith. I think this gives us a bias which leaves us more prone to discount religion by default.
In light of that unique bias (one which I share) I think it would be fair to caveat any statements about general religion or belief with a disclaimer of that bias.
Excellent observation,
Excellent observation, sir.
My religious background is not predominantly Mormon, like many of you, but it is Catholic, which I am given to understand is also quite effective (if not more so) at generating outright hatred for religion and subsequent contempt for religious people. 🙂
So the caveat I would enter here is that just because I consider myself to practice a given religion, that does not mean that I agree with every policy and dogma that religion espouses. Being Catholic does not automatically mean that I hate gays and believe women should not have positions of power. Most Catholics don’t believe this, in fact. And I choose to remain a Catholic because progress comes best when it’s internally motivated.
A relevant example: I’m an American, but that does not automatically mean that I believe in raping the planet to get my oil, that there is nothing more important than profit, or that the children dying of AIDS in Africa can look after their own damn selves. Most Americans don’t believe this, in fact. And I choose to remain American because progress comes best when it’s internally motivated.
One should always be careful not to let their own personal experience with a religion, country, or organization automatically color their opinion of every other individual member of said religion, country, or organization. That’s a textbook definition of prejudice.
Perhaps
…progress comes best when it’s internally motivated.
This may be true in the case of Catholocism, I just don’t know. In the case of Mormonism, attempts at progress or change are generally met with dicipline or full excommunication.
I know that there are movements in the Catholic church for any variety of reforms. As far as I know, a Catholic can join these movements and still take communion and even participate in the Priesthood.
In Mormonism, most reform movement leaders and many followers of those movements are usually summarily dismissed and ex’d.
I generally agree, however…
I’m not sure that having a bias is all that relevant in religious discourse. I agree that all of us have them as we cannot escape our various personal experiences, but we can also strive to look at the facts as objectively as we can.
At the least, I don’t think that our past experience with Mormonism rules out our perspectives as being too colored to be worthwhile. (A common refrain among self-proclaimed “mainstream” Christians is that ex-Mormons aren’t good judges of Christianity because they never really experienced it.)
But one could just as easily argue that our experiences as committed Mormons provide us with special insight into what it means to be deeply religious.
In any case, I would hope that our mutual goal in such discussions is to enlighten the topic from a variety of perspectives – all of which have some bearing and relevance.
A quick primer
Catholic = Guilty
If you’re Catholic, then you’re guilty of something. You’re not worthy, you’re full of sin, be gone, LEPER UNCLEAN!
Not biased at all My $.02 Weed
I often said…
As an active Mormon I often joked that Mormon’s were always looking for a reason that God hated them.
I don’t make that joke too often anymore as the context of my opinions has changed and the comments are now taken as seriously as I always meant them.
Here’s what I believe
35-7 baby!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you Joe Gibbs!!!!!!!!!!
I thought…
I thought you believed in “Four Strings and the Truth”?
Wishy-washy heretic! Joe Gibbs indeed…
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Mercurial
I reserve the right to alter my beliefs once the Redskins are actually playing meaningful games in December. I’m beyond psyched for this weekend’s home stand vs. the Giants. I haven’t gone out of my way to watch any games this year, but I think Sunday will find me perched in the corner at some sports bar, sipping my Diet Coke, and nervously watching a 14″ screen hanging from above…
AIGHHHH!!!!
Mark Effing Brunell!!! I had him on my fantasy team, but cut him once he started stinking up the joint.
Guess who picked him up? The guy who I played in the first round of our playoffs. 4 freaking touchdowns.
May Brunell and the Redskins die a slow horrible death!!!
My bitter $.02 Weed